Leadoff batter walks, next batter bunts the ball on a line about midway between first and second. Batter/runner heads to first, running in fair territory about 4 feet inside the baseline.
Catcher heads to the ball. Runner is in catcher's direct path to the ball, so catcher basically runs through the runner, who, after being shoved another 5-6 feet sideways, keeps his balance and continues to first. Catcher grabs the ball and throws runner out at first.
Plate ump called interference, batter out, R1 returns to first.
Probably correct. If the contact occurred within a few feet of home plate, it could be ruled "nothing". But if the contact occurred at, say, 5 or 6 feet or more away from home, the runner should have had time to perceive the path of the ball, and to avoid the space the catcher needs to field the ball. So it would be interference.
Posts: 1084 | Location: Belmont, CA | Registered: April 01, 2006
Dash - Yes, the PU sold it well, at least after he called it, which was a bit late. The catcher (my son) told me later that he saw that his direct path to the ball would involve running through the runner, so he did it expecting to get the call. After he threw the ball, he turned around looking for the call, and it was then that the ump called it.
It was actually a critical play. In a one run game, the difference between one out and a guy on second, and one out guy on first is a big difference.
When I saw it I thought it was just a no call. But kinda gotta give my son props for seeing an opportunity and being the salesman a bit himself.
It means delivering a ruling emphatically, and with confidence, not only with respect to WHAT the ruling is, but WHY it was issued. Selling a call leaves no doubt in anyone's mind that the umpire saw what happened on the play, and applied the appropriate rule properly, fairly and impartially.
It also answers, preemptively, any questions a RAT coach may have, and serves as a warning that any such RAT coach who intends to get in the umpires face and argue for argument's sake, or to "fire up his team" will not be tolerated, and that the RAT coach is best advised to stay in his RAT hole amongst the sunflower seeds, tobacco juice, spit and other garbage if he wishes to retain such privilege for the remainder of the game.
Selling a call does not, however, preclude a Head Coach from requesting time to approach the umpire in a respectful manner to seek a clarification of his ruling. Such a request will always result in the umpire treating the Head Coach with courtesy and respect.
Does that answer your question Mr. TRHit?
Posts: 722 | Location: Long Island, NY | Registered: December 19, 2007
Originally posted by Rob Kremer: Dash - Yes, the PU sold it well, at least after he called it, which was a bit late. The catcher (my son) told me later that he saw that his direct path to the ball would involve running through the runner, so he did it expecting to get the call. After he threw the ball, he turned around looking for the call, and it was then that the ump called it.
It was actually a critical play. In a one run game, the difference between one out and a guy on second, and one out guy on first is a big difference.
When I saw it I thought it was just a no call. But kinda gotta give my son props for seeing an opportunity and being the salesman a bit himself.
It could also be that the umpire was just using good timing, and was not influenced by your son's salesmanship. Generally, coaches, players and fans tend to make "calls" much more quickly than the umpire does (causing umpires to frequently be blamed for letting a coach make the call). But lightning quick timing (beating the coach to the call) is one of the best ways for an umpire to get it wrong.
Posts: 722 | Location: Long Island, NY | Registered: December 19, 2007
